Probably just emits another photon of the exact same wavelength a short time later. The time would be probabilistic, like 50% chance of emission in X amount of time.
Physics does not emphasize this, but the half life concept essentially assumes a Poisson process (Cinlar, Stochastic Processes) which has a Markov (past and future conditionally independent given the present, details from the Radon-Nikodym theorem, with a cute von Neumann polynomial proof, Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis) assumption.
The half life concept seems to be standard over much of physics.
That a Markov assumption could hold might suggest some new physics.
If I remember correctly GPS is effected but the ultra precise version the gov uses can error correct pretty well. I would think greater GPS precision at a lower cost?
People have been saying that about Microsoft for ages but it keeps growing and chugging along. I use a minimum of 7 Google products everyday, they came up with all of the research for LLMs, they have the only self driving car that actually works, run the largest smartphone OS in the world by a mile etc. They’re not going anywhere.
Microsoft has built an Enterprise business that has too many lock-ins (Active Directory, Office specially Excel), that even if they make many missteps the business will keep pumping money, and makes it easy to sell new products to the same audience (Azure/teams). Enterprise companies run very very long even when they decline (IBM/Oracle).
Google's ad business while printing cash is very brittle. Consumer taste can change any day and can cause Google to suddenly look at some big percentage drop. Ad is still the only moneymaker of the company. All the products you listed above are not making money, most money comes via search ads (which Android surely helps to), and that can go the way of Altavista due to several reasons (people moving to chatbots, iOS changing default or allowing new engines, regulators forcing chrome/android to randomize default).
Ah give up the hysterics. Sure they care about the environment. They do a lot based on the materials they use, packaging, power for their factories and campuses etc. but they also care about their bottom line like a successful company does. This sort of hyperbolic comment falls flat because it’s reactionary and lazy.
Words might lie, but deeds do not lie. Look at what they do, not at what they say. Apple is only about bottom line. Look at the Foxconn manufacturing. Look at what chemicals are actually in their computers. Look at their relentless focus on using the cheapest labor and put suicide nets in their facilities instead of giving people a few more dollars per day.
Now, every successful company have to have a great bottom-line and that should be a focus as well yes. Not sure how to balance that for a big company like Apple, and I am happy I am not in that position.
A face value may sound like an absurd joke but it’s 100% the truth. The unfortunate reason many people do not see it this way is that it is a difficult skill to practice if you’ve built a lifetime/identity ignoring it.
3D printing has plenty of usage. I don’t think the “mainstream” has any need for it (atleast until the point where the printers can print multi material slices to print out entire products) but the people that use it are still a sizable segment.
It would make the architect the boss because he would tell you what needs to happen next. That scenario with a client deadline means the “architect” is going to push you to finish before the deadline, prod you to get back to work if you’re lazing around and generally fulfill the role of a foreman. Anarchism is a theoretical mental exercise with no basis in anything in the real world. True anarchism is just current day Haiti where there strong rule over the weak because anarchism doesn’t provide any solutions as to how to build and maintain a society without hierarchies.
Your reasoning seems a bit tangled. In one sense, "anarchism" is just the absence of government, so is often used to describe the state where a government has collapsed and various groups are vying violently for power. But they aren't trying to create an anarchist society with an absence of hierarchy, but to simply reinstate the power pyramid with themselves on top.
As for an architect somehow becoming a boss because they are the only one who knows what to do, I can't even imagine this happening. Anarchists would walk out instead of being bossed around. Lazing around can be acceptable in anarchism, since maximising production (with most of it taken by the rich anyway) isn't the goal.
"It would make the architect the boss because he would tell you what needs to happen next."
But he would have no formal power and there would be no underlings. The other people would voluntaritly accept his leadership based on his skills. (Or they would not and leave). So he cannot treat them bad just because he feels like it.
That is a different approach to power and I have seen it working in the real world (think of the friends example).
But yes, I also have not seen it working stable and consistent enough to base all of society on it.
So the explicit anarchistic projects I have seen, definitely had (informal) power structures.
So I really love the consensus approach of anarchism when it is working. It is really awesome working together with people who all do it because they want to, not because they have to. But the hypocrosy regarding power is turning me off. Because in reality there are no true equals and also in anarchistic projects there are people having way more power than others. Which I don't think is bad, but it is bad pretending this isn't the case.
again, in this scenario that wouldn't magically make the architect "the boss", at least according to the US idea of "boss", it simply means he's leading the project.
ive been fortunate enough to know quite a few adult anarchists, professionals who are very very respected in their fields. engineers who you have probably heard of. im not referring to college age kids still on wobbly legs, young bambis who are still trying to find their footings. actual mature professionals. and i hesitate to put words in their mouth but ill give it a shot. apologies in advance if im off, anarchists please absolutely correct me:
i suspect they would say something like you have to distinguish between a leader and a boss. you also have to distinguish between someone who is an "authority in their field" vs "authority figure." one is an expert who is well respected, they're an authority in their field, they have wisdom and expertise in some subject. their words have more weight in that subject. that isn't the same as an authority figure, someone who has power to cause negative outcomes for you personally. we see a lot of noise about "anarchists are anti-authority", but they absolutely are not anti-wisdom or anti-expertise. they're anti-authority_figure.
from what i've seen anarchist projects have no problem with team leaders and they certainly have no problem at all with someone being an expert authority in their field. for example they have no problem at all with the concept of a team leader because if the project 'leader' is an obnoxious dickbag, they can just all pick up and move the meeting next door and leave the obnoxious person behind. we do this kind of team organizing everyday outside of work without bosses, whether its a camping trip amongst friends, a family reunion, hackathon, lan party, etc... etc...
to an anarchist, someone being good at something doesn't mean that im not good at something else. and both of us being good at different things doesn't magically give either of us the right to be a dickbag to each other. for groups of people organizing to complete some random large project, leaders need someone to do x, y, and z just as much as the team needs organization. and if the leader is awful the team is always free to metaphorically move the meeting next door and leave the awful person behind. there is no shortage of organizing that happens outside of a boss/employee relationship where the person organizing knows they can't be a dickbag because no one would help them. if no one wants to help them, they can't realize their project.
anyway, anarchists, again, sorry if anything ive said is entirely wrong. please please correct me.
Who can instantly recall them? A group vote or an individual? Because one of them is just democracy and the other is utterly unworkable. The first time someone doesn’t want to work, they’re going to “recall” the boss.
Direct democracy, ranging from majority vote to some kind of consensus or consent. Considering someone not working - in anarchy you can always pick with whom you associate with so you can just not associate with a persons who you feel is too lazy.
